A Human Factors-Based Assessment Framework for Evaluating Performance in Control Room Interface Design

REFERENCES

• Adhitya, A., Cheng, S. R., Lee, Z., & Srinivasan, R. (2014). Quantifying the effectiveness of an alarm management system through human factors studies. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 67, 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2014.03.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American National Standards Institute (ANSI) & International Society of Automation (ISA). (2009). Management of Alarm Systems for the Process Industries (ANSI/ISA-18.2-2009). Research Triangle Park, NC: ISA.
   Google Scholar
• American Petroleum Institute (API). (2007). Recommended practice for pipeline SCADA displays. Washington, DC: API Publishing Services.
   Google Scholar
• Bullemer, P., Reising, D. V., Burns, C., Hajdukiewicz, J., & Andrzejewski, J. (2008). ASM Consortium guidelines: Effective operator display design. Phoenix, AZ: ASM Consortium.
   Google Scholar
• Bullemer, P., Tolsma, M., Reising, D. V., & Laberge, J. (2011). Towards improving operator alarm flood response: Alternative alarm presentation techniques. ISA Automation Week 2011, Chicago, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, E., & Lees, F. P. (Eds.). (1974). The human operator in process control. London, England: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Endsley, M. R. (1995a). Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 65–84. doi: 10.1518/001872095779049499
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Endsley, M. R. (1995b). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 32–64. doi: 10.1518/001872095779049543
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Endsley, M. R. (2000). Direct measurment of situation awareness: Validity and use of Sagat. In M.R. Endsley & D.J. Garland (Eds.), Situation awareness analysis and measurement (pp. 147–174). Mahwah, NJ; Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Endsley, M. R., Selcon, S. J., Hardiman, T. D., & Croft, D. G. (1998). A comparative analysis of SAGAT and SART for evaluations of situation awareness. 42nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Chicago, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Errington, J., Reising, D. V. C., Bullemer, P., DeMaere, T., Coppard, D., Doe, K., & Bloom, C. (2005). Establishing human performance improvements and economic benefit for a human-centered operator interface: An industrial evaluation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 49(23), 2036–2040. doi: 10.1177/154193120504902308
   Google Scholar
• Gawron, V. J. (2008). Human performance, workload, and situational awareness measures handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). North-Holland, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
   Google Scholar
• Huang, F.-H., Lee, Y.-L., Hwang, S.-L., Yenn, T.-C., Yu, Y.-C., Hsu, C.-C., & Huang, H.-W. (2007). Experimental evaluation of human-system interaction on alarm design. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 237, 308–315. doi: 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2006.04.027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Society of Automation (ISA). (2010). Human machine interfaces for process automation systems (ISA-101). Research Triangle Park, NC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Jamieson, G. A. (2007). Ecological interface design for petrochemical process control: An empirical assessment. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics—Part A: Systems and Humans, 37(6), 906–920. doi: 10.1109/TSMCA.2007.897583
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johannsen, G. (1997). Conceptual design of multi-human machine interfaces. Control Engineering Practice, 5(3), 349–361. doi: 10.1016/S0967-0661(97)00012-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jou, Y.-T., Yenn, T.-C., Lin, C. J., Yang, C.-W., & Chiang, C.-C. (2009). Evaluation of operators' mental workload of human-system interface automation in the advanced nuclear power plants. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 239, 2537–2542. doi: 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2009.06.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, S. K., Suh, S. M., Jang, G. S., Hong, S. K., & Park, J. C. (2012). Empirical research on an ecological interface design for improving situation awareness of operators in an advanced control room. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 253, 226–237. doi: 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2012.08.026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laberge, J. C., Bullemer, P., Tolsma, M., & Reising, D. V. C. (2014). Addressing alarm flood situations in the process industries through alarm summary display design and alarm response strategy. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 44, 395–406. doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2013.11.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, S. W., Kim, A. R., Ha, J. S., & Seong, P. H. (2011). Development of a qualitative evaluation framework for performance shaping factors (PSFs) in advanced MCR HRA. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 38, 1751–1759. doi: 10.1016/j.anucene.2011.04.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorenzo, D. K. (1990). A manager's guide to reducing human errors: Improving human performance in the chemical industry. Washington, DC: Chemical Manufacturer's Association, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Luximon, A., & Goonetilleke, R. S. (2001). Simplified subjective workload assessment technique. Ergonomics, 44(3), 229–243. doi: 10.1080/00140130010000901
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meshkati, N. (2003). Control rooms' design in industrial facilities. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 13(4), 269–277. doi: 10.1002/hfm.10043
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meshkati, N. (2006). Safety and human factors considerations in control rooms of oil and gas pipeline systems: Conceptual issues and practical observations. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 12(1), 79–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nachreiner, F., Nickel, P., & Meyer, I. (2006). Human factors in process control systems: The design of human-machine interfaces. Safety Science, 44, 5–26. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2005.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). (2006). Supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) in liquid pipelines (Safety Study NTSB/SS-05/02). Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• O’Hara, J. M., Higgins, J. C., Fleger, S. A., & Pieringer, P. A. (2012). Human factors engineering program review model (NUREG-0711, Rev. 3). Retrieved from http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0711/
   Google Scholar
• Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). (2005). Pipeline safety: Control certification pilot program (CCERT). Federal Register.
   Google Scholar
• Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-468. (2006). Retreived from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ468/pdf/PLAW-109publ468.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Reid, G. B., & Nygren, T. E. (1988). The subjective workload assessment technique: A scaling procedure for measuring mental workload. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 185–218). North-Holland, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
   Google Scholar
• Sanderson, P.M., Verhage, A.G., & Fuld, R.B. (1989). State-space and verbal protocol methods for studying the human operator in process control. Ergonomics, 32(11), 1343–1372.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, A. D., & Guttman, H. E. (1983). Handbook of human reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear power plant applications (NUREG/CR-1278). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Tharanathan, A., Bullemer, P., Laberge, J., Reising, D. V., & Mclain, R. (2012). Impact of functional and schematic overview displays on console operators’ situation awareness. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 6(2), 141–164. doi: 10.1177/1555343412440694
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. (2007). Investigation report: Refinery explosion and fire, BP, Texas City, Texas (2005-04-I-TX). Retrieved from http://www.csb.gov/investigations/detail.aspx?SID=20&Type=2&pg=1&F_InvestigationId=20
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. (2008). Investigation report: Pesticide chemical runaway reaction pressure vessel explosion. Retrieved from http://www.csb.gov/assets/1/19/Bayer_Report_Final.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Uhack II, G., & Harvey, C. M. (2010). Empirically evaluating and developing alarm rate standards for liquid pipeline control room operators. 3rd Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE) International Conference, Miami, FL.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, C.-W., Hsief, T.-L., Lin, S.-F., Lin, C. J., Teng, H.-M., & Chiu, Y.-F. (2011). Operators' signal-detection performance in video display unit monitoring tasks of the main control room. Safety Science, 29, 1309–1313. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2011.04.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, C.-W., Yang, L.-C., Cheng, T.-C., Jou, Y.-T., & Chiou, S.-W. (2012). Assessing mental workload and situation awareness in the evaluation of computerized procedures in the main control room. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 250, 713–719. doi: 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2012.05.038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yung-Sen, W., & Sheue-Ling, H. (1995). An experimental study on the information design of CRT display in process control systems. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 15(6), 459–469. doi: 10.1016/0169-8141(94)00064-A
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar